Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The President , The Yemmiganur ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 22 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
W.A.No. 97 OF 2017 & W.P.No.30475 of 2012
(Through physical mode)
W.A.No.97 of 2017
The Yemmiganur Weavers' Cooperative
Production & Sales Society Ltd., Y-298,
represented by the President,
Yemmiganur-518 360 (A.P.),
Kurnool District.
..Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by the Principal Secretary,
Industries & Commerce (Textiles)
Department, Secretariat, and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. K. Rajanna
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Industries & Commerce
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Labour.
Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. Ch. Markondaiah
W.P.No.30475 of 2012
M. Sivanna, S/o Mallenna, President,
The Yemmiganuru Weavers' Cooperative
Production & Sales Society Limited,
Yemmiganuru, Kurnool District.
..Petitioner
HCJ & DVSSS,J
WP No.30475 of 2012
Versus
The Authority appointed under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 and the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour, Srikakulam, and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Labour
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Industries & Commerce.
Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. Ch. Markondaiah
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt:22.09.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
The writ appeal and the writ petition are arising out of the
proceedings of the Authority appointed under Section 20 of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Srikakulam.
2. In W.P.No.30475 of 2012, the employer has assailed the legality
and validity of the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Authority
appointed under the Minimum Wages Act and the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam deciding the application filed by
the employee i.e., M.W. Case No.77 of 2011 claiming an amount of
HCJ & DVSSS,J
WP No.30475 of 2012
Rs.46,712.88 ps., towards difference of wages for the period from
01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010.
3. The employee, who filed the aforesaid M.W.No.77 of 2011, filed
application in the year 2014 i.e., M.W.No.63 of 2014 before the
Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act and the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam, claiming an amount of
Rs.1,09,263/- towards difference of Minimum wages for the period
from 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2013.
4. Both the applications i.e., M.W.Nos.77 of 2011 and 63 of 2014
had been allowed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam. During pendency of
the first writ petition viz., W.P.No.30475 of 2012, which was filed
against the order in M.W.No.77 of 2011, the subsequent writ petition
viz., W.P.No.1721 of 2016, which was filed by the employer against the
order dated 16.12.2015 in M.W.No.63 of 2014, came to be disposed of
on 07.12.2016, against which W.A.No.97 of 2017 has been preferred.
5. Vide order dated 07.12.2016 in W.P.No.1721 of 2016, the
learned single Judge has observed that the 3rd respondent (employee)
in the writ petition was employed at the Sales Society Depot of the writ
petitioner-Yemmiganur Weavers' Co-operative Production & Sales
Society Limited, Kurnool District and was paid wages at lesser rate
HCJ & DVSSS,J
WP No.30475 of 2012
than the minimum wages on the basis of the agreement between the
Union and the management of the petitioner. The learned single Judge
concluded that there cannot be any agreement between the parties
fixing wage at lesser rate than the wages notified by the Government
under the Minimum Wages Act.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are not
inclined to interfere in the matter for the simple reason that the
agreement contrary to the minimum wages prescribed by notification
under the Minimum Wages Act is opposed to public policy and also
contrary to the statutory prescription under the Minimum Wages Act
and such agreement, therefore, cannot be given effect to. In view of
the same, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. Since similar issue
is involved in W.P.No.30475 of 2012, the same also deserves to be
dismissed for the same reasons.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are dismissed.
No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
Nn
HCJ & DVSSS,J
WP No.30475 of 2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
W.A.No. 97 OF 2017 & W.P.No.30475 of 2012
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt:22.09.2022
Nn
